Monday 9 April 2012

Cemetery Spectres and Pub Spirits.


As I mentioned in my first blog entry I had learned that there were two main protagonists in the Highgate Vampire case. I have already discussed Sean Manchester so now I must turn my attention to David Farrant. His account differs somewhat from Manchester's and it is one that I first got to hear about via an encyclopaedia on the occult and supernatural that was sitting on the shelf of my school library (of all places). Unfortunately I cannot recall the title of the book but the entry on the Highgate Vampire struck a chord with me nevertheless and memories of my visit to the cemetery and my father's stories had come flooding back.

In essence the book referred to a vampiristic spectre that was reputed not only to be haunting the cemetery but other locations within its vicinity. It was where I first heard about 'Thornton's' (a pseudonym adopted to protect his identity) cemetery encounter. Thornton was a local accountant who decided to visit the west cemetery (the oldest of the two cemeteries) one late afternoon so he could view the varied architecture of the mausoleums, gravestones, and the elaborately carved tombs of the Egyptian avenue and the Circle of Lebanon.

In those days you could freely walk around unsupervised so he explored the cemetery at his leisure. So when he had finally seen what he wanted to see, and with dusk fast approaching he decided to make his way back to the exit. Only he couldn't seem to be able to retrace his steps and in fact appeared to be going in circles. Quite understandably he grew increasingly anxious and it was not before long that he started to feel that he was being followed by someone or something. This feeling intensified to the point that he felt that he had to turn around to see just who or what it was. To his horror he saw a tall, black and amorphous humanoid shape rise up from the ground to the point that it towered well above him.



Two glowering red eyes met his and Thornton felt that he could no longer move or even cry out for help. He was not sure if it was either from fear or whether he was in the hypnotic thrall of the spectre, but he slowly felt his vitality leave him. He then passed out only to come to some time later, but he found to his relief that he was now quite alone. Gathering his wits, this time he managed to find the exit and sometime later was to recount his experience to Farrant. As it was, the encyclopaedia’s author had surmised that the vampire tag had probably originated from the eyewitnesses’ descriptions of hypnotic red eyes and a feeling of being drained of energy.

Though it has been alleged that there has been a long standing local legend of a cemetery haunting, it would appear that it had been considered to have been just a ghost – albeit a malevolent one by some. Certainly it was first described as a ghost by the local press and TV reports. It is therefore much more likely that Manchester’s theory of a ‘King Vampire’ from the continent being responsible is the real origin of the subsequent vampire tag.

The book went on to describe another attack - this time a very physical one in which the victim – a young man who was walking along the adjacent Swains Lane, was knocked to the ground by a tall dark figure that appeared to glide along the ground before disappearing through the solid, twelve foot high wall that backed onto the cemetery. This same apparition was also reputed to haunt the local Flask public house and again was witnessed phasing from and into solid brick walls. On many of these occasions the local bells of the nearby St Michael’s church were said to toll at precisely the same time.

I cannot recall just what the author's conclusions were as it was too long ago, but nevertheless I had found it very intriguing (at the time) that there was absolutely no mention of a vampire hunting priest in his narrative!

57 comments:

  1. You are incorrect to claim that the Highgate Vampire "was first described as a ghost by the local press and TV reports." It is true that some published letters to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in February and March 1970 referred to a "ghost" but we now know a number of those letters not to be genuine.

    There were only two television reports in 1970 and both these referred to a vampire. Indeed, the second of these in October of that year, made by the BBC's 24 Hours programme, was even titled "Vampires"; the previous one on Thames Television's Today programme exclusively drew upon the experiences of those who claimed to have seen a vampire, not a ghost.

    Seán Manchester had informed the public on 27 February 1970 in a front page headline interview/article for the Hampstead & Highgate Express that demonic disturbances and manifestations in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery were vampiric. Shortly afterwards he appeared on Thames Television on 13 March 1970 to repeat his theory. The president of the British Occult Society made an appeal on the Today programme at 6.00pm to request the public not to get involved, nor put into jeopardy the investigation already in progress.

    The suspected tomb was located and an exorcism performed in August 1970. This proved ineffective as the hauntings and animal deaths continued. Indeed, they multiplied. All manner of people were by now jumping on the bandwagon; including film-makers, rock musicians and sundry publicity-seekers. Most were frightened off. Some who interloped became fascinated by the black arts with disastrous consequences. In the meantime, Seán Manchester and his colleagues in the British Occult Society pursued the principal source of the contagion originally disovered at Highgate until it was properly exorcised in the only manner known to be effective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Redmond's assertion that 'the Highgate Vampire "was first described as a ghost by the local press and TV reports"', actually is correct. The letters, as you noted, did originally refer to a ghost - indeed, Manchester reproduced several letters (including Farrant's) in his writings.

      Manchester's assertion that the 'ghost' was actually a vampire did, indeed, take place in the 27 February 1970 issue of the Ham & High. Therefore, what was later be referred to as 'the Highgate vampire', was actually a ghost - or ghosts - to start with.

      Delete
  2. The assertion is incorrect in so far that the television reports were exclusively about a reputed vampire, not a ghost, and too many descriptions given in the "letters to the editor" column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express referring to a "ghost" proved either unreliable or outright bogus.

    The first official mention of the Highgate Vampire in the media was by Seán Manchester in February 1970, but a rumoured vampire had been known about for years prior. In his anthology, The Vampire's Bedside Companion (1975), which contains a chapter with photographic evidence from the British Occult Society, written and contributed by Seán Manchester, Peter Underwood says:

    “Alleged sightings of a vampire-like creature ― a grey spectre ― lurking among the graves and tombstones have resulted in many vampire hunts. … In 1968, I heard first-hand evidence of such a sighting and my informant maintained that he and his companion had secreted themselves in one of the vaults and watched a dark figure flit among the catacombs and disappear into a huge vault from which the vampire … did not reappear. Subsequent search revealed no trace inside the vault but I was told that a trail of drops of blood stopped at an area of massive coffins which could have hidden a dozen vampires.”

    In 1967 two schoolgirls had reported seeing the spectre rise from its tomb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, BOS, you must be an impostor, as the actual BOS was dissolved in 1988. Nonetheless, I'll address your response.

      The television reports did not just concern themselves with vampires, but sightings about the cemetery. Indeed, Farrant's account in the 13 March 1970 broadcast referred to the figure he'd seen, not a vampire. That was Manchester's assertion.

      It's fair to say the letters to the Ham & High are somewhat suspicious, but the fact remains: Manchester not only used them as evidence to back his own claims, but they reveal that initial sightings did, as I mention, concern a ghost/s.

      Indeed, the 27 February 1970 article, 'Does a wampyr walk in Highgate?' states: 'We don't want to frighten you, but the ghost of Highgate Cemetery might be . . . a vampire' and 'Mr. Manchester, a 25-year-old photographer, said: "The phenomenon reported by Highgate people in letters to the Ham and High is not merely the apparition of an earth-bound spirit, which is relatively harmless, but much worse - that of a wampyr or, as it is more popularly known, a vampire."' There's no refuting the facts.

      The problem with the claims made by Manchester - and Underwood - in the book, is that it followed five years after the initial sightings reported to the Ham & High. And note the references to a 'grey spectre' which directly follows from Farrant's claim. Underwood's references to not explicitly link the sightings to vampires, either. Therefore, your 'evidence' is flawed.

      The two schoolgirl sightings are somewhat suspect, when we consider the affiliation of the parties to Manchester, as well as the differences between her account and what Manchester relates in his books. See: http://plan9.150m.com/vampires%20prey.htm

      Delete
  3. "The assertion is incorrect in so far that the television reports were exclusively about a reputed vampire, not a ghost, and too many descriptions given in the "letters to the editor" column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express referring to a "ghost" proved either unreliable or outright bogus"

    No Sean, THIS assertion is incorrect, as well you know. Nearly all of the reports, including correspondence to the local Press, invariably all specifically dealt with sightings of a 'tall ghostly figure' (sometimes reported as having 'red eyes') in and around Highgate Cemetery in the 1960's and 1970's. But it was not described as a 'vampire' - or anything like one - until you attempted to cash in on the official investigation and made this allegation to a local newspaper, and later followed up your claim on two television programmes in 1970. I never stated that the reported apparition was a 'vampire'; the closest I ever came to this was by answering a question from a local reporter saying it (the figure) appeared to take on 'vampire-like characteristics' in view of the fact it had allegedly attacked (psychically) two passers by in Swains Lane by night and on two seperate occasions. When answering this question I had said that if the reported figure turned out to be anything like a 'vampire', I would take whatever means necessary so that we could all 'rest in peace'. I was obviously humouring this particular person who was trying to pursue the 'vampire angle' - that had been introduced by yourself, no doubt for publicity purposes.

    So try and get your facts right, Sean. Your vampire yarn really is wearing a bit thin!

    David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.

    NB In 1997, I personally received a report from a person who had encountered this apparition or 'ghost' in 1965, and shortly after this, he confirmed this sighting in writig for me which I added to the files of the BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reports were not actually consistent, as you make them out to be. Sightings varied, and, as BOS alludes, the letters were of questionable origins, as they were sent from people known to yourself and Manchester, with no disclosure to this effect.

      As to the spectre being re-cast as a vampire, if Manchester 'cashed in' on this, so did you: 'The worst I did was to go along with another person's innane [sic] wild assertions about a "blood-sucking vampire", but again, this was only because this was the "angle" the Press and television wanted at the time - 'vampires' apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV.'

      You actually did associate yourself with a vampire hypothesis, whether or not your comments to the reporter were in jest. In the second TV report, 15 October 1970, you were asked: 'Have you seen this vampire ?' Your response: 'I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and I saw it on two occasions.' The same episode features a re-enactment of one of your vigils, which consisted of wielding a cross and stake.

      In 2005, you stated that 'The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.' You're clearly attempting to whitewash your involvement in the vampire hypothesis, but that doesn't hold up against the most basic scrutiny. The regret is understandable - the whitewashing attempts are simply disingenuous.

      Delete
  4. "The television reports did not just concern themselves with vampires, but sightings about the cemetery. Indeed, Farrant's account in the 13 March 1970 broadcast referred to the figure he'd seen, not a vampire."

    We have in our archive all the related television programmes from 1970, and they specifically refer to a vampire at Highgate Cemetery.

    The first, transmitted on 13 March 1970, comprised a number of interviews with witnesses to the manifestation, plus an overview by the president of the British Occult Society, Seán Manchester, who was asked to explain how a vampire might be exorcised by the interviewer, Sandra Harris. He was also requested to include items used as repellents and exorcism implements. He, nor anyone else, was asked about exorcising "ghosts" or "apparitions."

    All the witnesses were referring to a vampire, not a "ghost," and even the person who had originally spoken about a "ghost" in the previous month to a local newspaper when asked if the being was evil, answered: "Yes, I did feel it was evil because the last time I actually saw its face, and it looked like it had been dead for a long time." Sandra Harris asked him to clarify this and he responded: "Well, I mean it certainly wasn’t human."

    Ghosts are the shades of deceased humans. He said it wasn't human. He also said it was evil and looked like it had been dead for a long time. This more resembles the description of a vampire than it does a dead person's ghost.


    "The letters were of questionable origins, as they were sent from people known to yourself and Manchester, with no disclosure to this effect."

    Seán Manchester knew none of the correspondents writing in the letters' column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in February and March of 1970. Years later he became aware that some of these letters to the editor contained addresses and in some cases names of people who were personal friends of the man who wrote about his three sightings of a "ghost" in February 1970 in the letter column of the same local newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Seán Manchester knew none of the correspondents writing in the letters' column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in February and March of 1970', not true.

      After Redmond and I discussed 'Peter Lord's' address on our Facebook group, 'The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society', Manchester responded thusly on his blog: 'The London address, as stated many times in the past, was my parental one which I eventually inherited. At the time it was being used as an accommodation address for the Society I presided over until August 1988 when that organisation for research into occult and supernatural phenomena was dissolved.'

      You're really splitting hairs with the TV coverage, too, as it did still concern spectral sightings. That the 'ghost' was morphed into a vampire by Manchester, Farrant and the media, is without question, or it wouldn't've been acknowledged in the 27 February 1970 article.

      Delete
  5. “Seán Manchester knew none of the correspondents writing in the letters' column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in February and March of 1970. Years later he became aware that some of these letters to the editor contained addresses and in some cases names of people who were personal friends of the man who wrote about his three sightings of a "ghost" in February 1970 in the letter column of the same local newspaper.”

    So says the person who has now adopted the title the “British Occult Society”. To deal with this point first, let me point out - as the person who founded the British Occult Society back in 1967 - that this statement is incorrect. The Society was originally set up to deal with all cases of unexplained phenomena, and certainly not to promote, or encourage, a belief in ‘blood-sucking vampires’. Certain other people at the time, however, chose to use the Society’s name for publicity purposes and to thus further their own personal agenda’s i.e. to basically promote a home-made 8 mm film they had made in 1968 that attempted to portray the Highgate Cemetery ghost as a self-invented ‘vampire’. Highgate Cemetery was used for this purpose (in name anyway) although much of the hard-core filming took place in Kensal Green Cemetery.

    I was frequently being obliged to refute allegations made by this small group at the time: allegations that were continually trying to undermine the official Society investigation into an unexplained phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery that had been witnessed in and around Highgate Cemetery. Indeed, these claims became so bizarre, that in 1983, I was forced to change the name of the BOS to the BPOS (British Psychic and Occult Society). This name change still remains on official record.

    It is also on official record, that the individual named here as Mr. Sean Manchester, most certainly DID know some of the correspondents who wrote letters to local newspapers. Indeed, he not only ‘knew of’ these people, but had actually met them in person. Tape recordings made in the early 1980’s can irrevocably confirm this fact.

    I interviewed several people at the time (in 1970) who had claimed to have had some knowledge, or experience, of the ghostly phenomenon reported at Highgate and elsewhere.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Certain other people at the time, however, chose to use the Society’s name for publicity purposes and to thus further their own personal agenda’s', certain other people include yourself. You appeared alongside Manchester - who you claim was a current member at that time - in a 6 March 1970 article titled, 'Why do the foxes die?'.

      In response to Manchester's vampire theory, you said:

      “Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery.” he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. “The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died.
      “Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer.
      “Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.”

      At the time, Manchester was also claiming presidency of the society, indeed, the first recorded public mention of the organisation appears with him. You obviously had no problem with Manchester claiming leadership of the group, nor his vampire theory flown under the BOS banner. Once again, you're being disingenuous.

      Interestingly, you've also avoided mentioning your own associates, including K. Frewin (Kenny Frewin), Nava Ariell, Audrey Connolly, etc., writing into the paper. As I said, both you and Manchester were acquainted with several letter-writers to the Ham & High, but neither of you disclosed that at the time. Very suss.

      Delete
  6. This man owes no connection whatsoever to the British Occult Society whose name he cynically attempted to usurp in the early 1970s, but was thwarted on each and every occasion by the bona fide BOS having retractions published.

    When he falsely described himself as "president" of the BOS at his so-called "witchcraft" trials in 1974, newspapers invariably always added the prefix "self-styled." They were obliged to report what he claimed in court, but they were not obliged to believe him. Neither were the judge and jury!

    Seán Manchester has not "now adopted" the title he held from June 1967 (at a time this interloper was returning from France to prepare to marry someone in England; someone who refuted her husband's claims under oath in 1974 when called as a defence witness at one of his trials).

    Seán Manchester was captioned as "President of the British Occult Society" by television programmes from 13 March 1970, and was referred to in the same way by editors and journalists without the "self-styled" prefix they applied to the trouble-making hoaxer whose speciality then as now is manufacturing false claims about himself and malicious allegations about others.

    There was no "home-made 8mm film made in 1968" or at any other time, as alleged. This is just further concoction by the man who was responsible for inventing a "ghost" story and used his friends to collude in the hoax.

    Letters to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express followed immediately in the wake of his own letter claiming three sightings of a "ghost." The letter written by Kenny Frewin, however, complete with Frewin's genuine address at the time is fraudulent. He was a close personal friend of the hoaxer who also knew both Audrey and her husband Michael Connely, the latter joining him and the hoaxer's wife on drunken forays with others to Highgate Cemetery after the pubs closed.

    Another counterfeit letter to the same local newspaper is attributed to "Nava Arieli." It was, in fact, written by Nava Grunberg (later to become Nava Jehans) who was undoubtedly the hoaxer's closest friend (and occasional girlfriend) at the time. The address is not hers. She lived in Hampstead Lane in 1970, and still does. The address used was that of a freind of hers.

    The next couple of fake letters are no less fraudulent. Yossell Baker often drank in the Prince of Wales pub with the hoaxer and their mutual friends. He was drawn into the "ghost" hoax where his real name and address were used on fake correspondence.

    Then we come to a bogus letter written by a certain J McKennar of Muswell Hill. By a curious coincidence J McKennar resided at the hoaxer's current address, one he has held since the mid-1970s.

    When the hoaxer wrote his original fake letter of 6 February 1970, he resided at Tony Hill's coal bunker in a communal cellar belonging to an address in Archway Road. Hill has since confirmed he was also in on the hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were no fake letters back in 1970, only ones from people expressing their opinions or relating personal experiences. The only ‘hoax’ was forthcoming from an individual who wrote literally scores of anonymous letters to the Press and/or television programmes attempting to support an invented yarn he had introduced about the Highgate phenomenon really being a (literal) ‘vampire’. These letters were invariably written under false aliases, although they were (and remain) the handiwork of just one person. This same person continues to do this to this day (the last reply from the British Occult Society being just another example), although now he is using the Internet as his platform.
      This same person ADMITS that he entered Highgate Cemetery in 1970 together with a handful of unnamed ‘assistants’ and illegally broke into a vault there, then forced the lid off a coffin in his search for the ‘vampire’. He then goes on to claim that, in this coffin, he discovered this ‘vampire’, its eyes horribly glazed and its mouth still gorged with fresh blood.
      I have never heard such amateur verbiage in all my life; though it gets much better after (he claims) the ‘vampire’ later ‘escaped’ from the vault, and took up residence (together with its coffin!) in the cellars of a derelict mansion in Crouch End. There he claims to have staked this ‘vampire’ through its heart, and that it turned to slime and versa in the bottom of its coffin (but not before giving a mighty roar ‘as if from the bowels of hell’.
      Get real Sean! Nobody really believes this childish nonsense . . . except perhaps yourself!
      David Farrant, Preident, BPOS.

      Delete
    2. 'When he falsely described himself as "president" of the BOS at his so-called "witchcraft" trials in 1974, newspapers invariably always added the prefix "self-styled."' Not true. Not all accounts added that prefix, and the dispute over leadership occurred in the papers as early as 1971. Indeed, Farrant is also mentioned in conjunction with BOS in 1970 press reports.

      'There was no "home-made 8mm film made in 1968" or at any other time, as alleged. This is just further concoction by the man who was responsible for inventing a "ghost" story and used his friends to collude in the hoax', yet Manchester has alluded to making a film similar to the description Farrant mentions. He even concludes his description by saying, 'In the final scene she was absolutely drenched in the stuff, with very little on - it was very erotic - and I had to make love to her on a stone slab. I always enjoy working with other artists.'

      The film is titled, 'Le Vampire Exhume', which, of course, is French for 'The vampire exhumed' - the same title Manchester gave his 1980 MS.

      As to David's, 'There were no fake letters back in 1970, only ones from people expressing their opinions or relating personal experiences', this is a little hard to believe, especially in light of Victoria Jervis' latter court testimony: 'The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquilisers for me.'

      Evidently, both Manchester and Farrant were acquainted with several persons who wrote into the Ham & High after Farrant's 6 February 1970 letter. No disclosure was made, which renders the episode incredibly suspicious.

      Delete
    3. "Yet Manchester has alluded to making a film similar to the description Farrant mentions. He even concludes his description by saying, 'In the final scene she was absolutely drenched in the stuff, with very little on - it was very erotic - and I had to make love to her on a stone slab. I always enjoy working with other artists'."

      Seán Manchester has not "alluded to making a film" as you describe. He had nothing to do with the making of any such film. He was an actor in a French movie made more than two decades after the mythical "8mm film" which nobody other than the hoaxer claims to have seen. The person who made the movie to which you allude was the French director Guy Godefroy who cast Sylvaine Charlet and Seán Manchester in the lead of a professional drama that was released as an art house movie in France in the early 1980s. What has that got to do with the non-existent "8mm film" allegedly made as a "home movie" in 1968?

      Seán Manchester was most definitely not acquainted with any of the correspondents writing in the letters' column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in early 1970, and you have not provided a single scrap of evidence to suggest otherwise.

      Years later Seán Manchester came into contact with two of the correspondents, eg Nava Grunberg and Kenneth Frewin.

      He bumped into Nava Grunberg, who obviously recognised him, in Highgate High Street and they had an amicable conversation. She did not dispute that her friend of many years had hoaxed the "ghost" story and asked her to assist in that endeavour.

      Seán Manchester was threatened by Kenneth Frewin in Highgate Wood on Hallowe'en 1976 when the hoaxer engaged (before an assembly of newspaper hacks he had invited) in a black magic "duel" with someone who claimed to be a Satanist, but was actually the hoaxer's friend. Frewin was the hoaxer's "minder."

      No disclosure was made by the hoaxer that these and other people were his personal friends, which renders them invalid in the light of further disclosures by most everyone involved.

      Connely, Baker, all of them in fact, later admitted to assisting the hoaxer who requested to use their names and addresses for the purpose of writing fake letters about a "ghost" which didn't exist at Highgate Cemetery.

      The only person other than Frewin and Grunberg who Seán Manchester was acquainted with did not actually write to the local press, but he did discuss the "ghost" hoax with the hoaxer who was living in his cellar, and indeed colluded in the hoax. He also secretly recorded some of their conversations.

      Due to this man falling out with Seán Manchester from 1968 to some years later over something that would be personally embarrassing to the hoaxer is spelled out, it was only much later that Tony Hill confirmed his collusion with the hoaxer.

      These are the facts and no amount of conjecture will alter them.

      Delete
    4. The content of the film described by Farrant tallies with the film described by Manchester. The date of the film is not given in Manchester's description of it, so it's plausible it's one and the same film Farrant allegedly saw.

      What is your source, re: 'The person who made the movie to which you allude was the French director Guy Godefroy who cast Sylvaine Charlet and Seán Manchester', etc.?

      You said, 'Seán Manchester was most definitely not acquainted with any of the correspondents writing in the letters' column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in early 1970', yes, I did. I mentioned Peter Lord. Lord was one of the correspondents. Manchester now admits Lord was using his then-address, which also doubled as the BOS headquarters.

      What's your proof that Manchester 'came into contact with two of the correspondents, eg Nava Grunberg and Kenneth Frewin'? You're relaying secondhand information, which not even Manchester has confirmed.

      As to Manchester's 'encounter' with Frewin - at a duel involving Farrant and John Pope (a man who Manchester was also acquainted with) - that doesn't implicate Frewin. Indeed, Manchester also cited his letter in his writings, too.

      As to '[n]o disclosure', that's my point: no disclosure was made on Farrant's behalf, nor Manchester's, either. If that 'renders them invalid in the light of further disclosures', then considering Manchester also reproduces several of the letters in his writings as 'evidence' of his vampire claim, it just goes to show how weak his case actually was.

      Neither Connely, nor Baker nor 'all of them' have admitted to any such thing, as attested by your lack of sources.

      So, no, these are not 'the facts', they're largely hearsay and distortions presented by someone who has hijacked the name of a defunct society.

      Delete
    5. All the time you depend on enemies of Seán Manchester to attack Seán Manchester. Either it is the hoaxer, as in this case, or those who have colluded with the hoaxer. You quote these sources as if they mean anything when all you are doing is propagating their disinformation and poisonous propaganda.

      Get it into your head, there was no "8mm film made in 1968." If there was, who other than the hoaxer saw it? And it does not tally at all with the professional movie made over a decade later by Guy Godefroy which was released in the 1980s. The movie in which Sylvaine Charlet and Seán Manchester starred was shot entirely in France, and the screenplay was written by a Frenchman. It bore no resemblance to the unpublished manuscript with the same name that belongs exclusively to Seán Manchester.

      Peter Lord was an executive member of the British Occult Society. He and any other BOS members are obviously excluded from the statement made regarding Seán Manchester not knowing any of the correspondents in February and March 1970. It is simply a waste of time addressing such asinine comments. It has already been explained elsewhere by Seán Manchester himself about the BOS accommodation address. yet you labour the point.

      You are the person who allied the BOS blog with Seán Manchester on another group (THCVAS). Now you are implying what we say is worthless because he has not "confirmed" it. The information might be "second-hand," but it is no less accurate for that.

      Many people were misled by the counterfeit letters supporting the hoaxer's "ghost" sightings, not just Seán Manchester. Plenty of authors have referred to them, even British Occult Society veteran Peter Underwood. Fortunately, the fact that some of those letters were part of a hoax does not subtract from the vampire account which was not a ghost account.

      The threats made by the hoaxer's "minder" (Kenneth Frewin) were witnessed by Katrina Garforth-Bles, members of the public and a large number of newspaper reporters. The hoaxer himself surely does not deny that the threats took place. Frewin was warning Seán Manchester to stay away from the publicity-stunt involving the hoaxer and self-proclaimed Satanist John Pope. The warning came in the form of threats from an man who had been imprisoned for violence and had been arrested for assaulting his wife.

      Seán Manchester had nothing to "disclose." As previously stated, he did not know any of the people writing letters about a "ghost" to the local newspaper. He obviously knew other members of the British Occult Society. That goes without saying.

      The vampire account is not "weakened" because of a "ghost" hoax that was over before it had begun in the early weeks of 1970.

      Connely, Baker and the rest of those colluding in the "ghost" hoax were all very well known to Tony Hill and his wife, both of whom have confirmed that these people were used in the hoax.

      You seem to forget that the "ghost" was concocted in the first instance by Tony Hill and obviously the hoaxer himself.

      Delete
    6. 'Get it into your head, there was no "8mm film made in 1968."' One man's word against the other. At least, in Farrant's case, there's a precedent: his description of the film parallels the description given by Manchester. As I said, no date is given for the release of the film, so it's entirely plausible it was made during this time.

      'It bore no resemblance to the unpublished manuscript with the same name that belongs exclusively to Seán Manchester', who's to say? The manuscript is unpublished and unreleased. Nonetheless, it's intriguing that the name of the film matches the MS in question.

      As to Lord being 'obviously excluded', that's not what you said before, in that Manchester knew none of the correspondents. Hence, that is incorrect. Nor does it whitewash the fact that he utilised the respondents' letters to 'prove' his vampire theory.

      How did I ally the BOS blog with Manchester? No such confirmation has been made. You mention the society is defunct, yet you're labouring under its name, thus, you have hijacked its nomenclature.

      Your 'rebuttals', which are largely hearsay and unsubstantiated are largely worthless, yes. On that point, you're correct.

      In terms of Frewin warning Manchester away from the publicity-stunt in question, one can only wonder what he was doing there in the first place. Sounds like a 'set up'. Kev Demant has covered the incident here: http://plan9.150m.com/25%20Occult%20Duel.htm

      If you make the case that Manchester had no acquaintance with any of the correspondents to the Ham & High, which is undermined by his own admittance, then yes, a disclosure is necessary for the same reason acquaintances of Farrant writing into the paper should've disclosed their association. If you're using their accounts as evidence of a hoax, then the same charge applies Manchester's claims. Much like Farrant, you're being disingenuous.

      The vampire account IS weakened because of the ghost sightings, which, as I said, were used as evidence to support Manchester's vampire claims.

      If Tony Hill and his wife made pronouncements to the effect that Connely, Baker, et. al. were 'in on it', they've made no such disclosures, themselves. Once again, hearsay. If anything, there's greater evidence to suggest that Hill was part of an 'in-joke' enacted in the Ham & High's letter column. See: http://plan9.150m.com/whiteghost.htm

      I haven't forgetten that the ghost was (allegedly) concocted by Hill and Farrant. I'm say there's no conclusive evidence to substantiate that claim.

      Delete
  7. NO VAMPIRE - JUST A HOAXER!

    Lets be absolutely clear about one thing: the only ‘hoax’ that ever took place regarding the ghost reported at Highgate Cemetery back in 1970, was an elaborate scheme on the part of one obsessive individual determined to create a fictional ‘vampire, which (he claimed) had its lair in Highgate Cemetery. The “King Vampyre of the Undead” as he told the editor (Gerald Issaman) of the Hampstead and Highgate Express at the time. He had turned up at the Ham and High offices uninvited with his live-in girlfriend Jacqueline (aka ‘Lusis’) and proceeded to try and convince the editor that the ghost that had been reported locally in and around Highgate Cemetery was really a ‘blood-sucking vampire’. This interview ended up as a front page article of the newspaper; although the editor later admitted the he had . . . ‘only played the story for laughs’.

    But this unambiguous declaration about the ‘King Vampire’ was by no means a spontaneous one. Some two years prior to this, that hoaxer, together with an amateur photographer called Anthony Hill, had made an 8mm cine film (this film was in colour but had no sound) on the supposed existence of a ‘vampire’ at Highgate Cemetery, and this film had ‘starred’ himself as a ‘vampire hunter’ and his girlfriend Jacqueline who had played one of the vampire’s victims. It is perhaps especially interesting, because at the climax of this film, that hoaxer took on the role of the ‘vampire’, and is shown ‘decomposing’ after being staked through the heart as the finale of the ‘movie’. It was quite cleverly done using a paper mache mask and flour, and using slowed-down reverse photography. This film was shown to a number of people (including myself) at the hoaxer’s Holloway Road flat, and ‘stills’ of this ‘vampire’s decomposition were later re-produced in a self-published book about the ‘Highgate Vampire’ written by the same individual. They were also produced on three television programmes as ‘evidence’ that a vampire really existed at Highgate Cemetery. One of these was the main French television channel TFI, but they took great delight in exposing the whole thing as one elaborate hoax. (French TF1 producer Corrine Spark was to later state to French magazine “Entrevue” . . . “When we got the tape saying Manchester was a bishop, we didn’t check any further. And no British journalist told us about his past. The only thing they said was his obsession for vampires”. And . . . “Its disgusting that they left us to show such rubbish”).

    I do appreciate the concerns of a few people (like Anthony Hogg) who seemed to have missed the real issues about this vampire hoax, and prefer instead to concentrate on trivia about a handful of people giving their ghost experiences at Highgate to local newspapers in 1970. (All genuine people, I might add, not people writing under aliases) But to those I say, you are missing the blatantly obvious by failing to realise that there WAS NO Highgate vampire in reality, and that this was just a cleverly contrived hoax!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't missed the issue. If a hoax was involved, I'm saying you participated in it. That's fact. You accused Manchester of 'cashing in' on your ghost sightings, and rendering them into vampire sightings. But, if that's the cash, you've returned the favour by cashing in on the vampire tag.

      You're also circumventing the issue of the relationship of the persons who wrote into the Ham & High to yourself and Manchester. Downplaying this link, as it obviously casts a shadow over the validity of your 'investigation'.

      Delete
  8. "If a hoax was involved, I'm saying you participated in it. That's fact."
    So says Mr Anthony Hogg!
    If I recall rightly, my last post more or less exposed the vampire hoax perpetrated by one Mr Sean Manchester. I provided examples, and I gave my sources. They were clearly given with no ambiguity. Now, that IS FACT.
    And all Mr Hogg is capable of (as with his usual tirades) is attempting to implicate myself in the major hoax that I have just exposed in my last post. It's rather sad really that Mr Hogg is forced to rely only on a couple of 40 year old letters to a local newspaper which serviced a very small community, and from people who signed in their own names and were only expressing their opinions which have never been retracted.
    I am only ignoring this in favour of hearing some definite response from Mr Hogg to the points I have just raised. No more sidetracking please, Anthony.
    How do you explain the comments made in the best selling French magazine Entrevue that stated the photographs of a decomposing vampire (or more precisely, a copy of a British TV program from which these were taken) were fakes?
    THAT is the point I am sure we are all waiting for you to answer, Anthony.
    So over to you then. We are all waiting!...

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

    FROM DELLA:
    Anyone who is not an entirely gullible wretch who 'wants to believe' knows that Sean's photos are fake, as is his entire vampire narrative. However in light of the evidence for it being a hoax, which has been discussed here there and everywhere many many times, I do find the idea of a hoax regarding ghosts in a heavily haunted area being necessary to be rather absurd. The numbers of people who report seeing ghosts far outweighs the number of people who report (seriously, supposedly) seeing vampires, who can largely be counted on one hand if one discounts vampiroids / fantasists. Which does beg the question, should those digits include Sean Manchester and Tony Hill. I would say - not. Regarding the demographic of the people who reported the incidents, the people who wrote to the Ham and High were generally either people of a spiritualistic bent or people who drank in the local pubs which were the focus of much of the haunting or both. No surprise that they were the people who saw the ghosts. No surprise that they were the people who wrote the letters. Regarding the volume of people who have lived at 142 Muswell Hill Road over the years, (it was one of the only house of multiple occupancy on Muswell Hill Road) I think this goes some way to explaining the address coincidence, and the timing makes no sense at all.

    On a side note I would like to ask Sean Manchester why he feels that Nava Grunberg's present address is of any relevance whatsoever. I would congratulate him for desisting from using the usual suffix which he pointlessly and irrelevantly uses when describing her, however I cannot help but think that this new found political correctness and self restraint can only be viewed in the light of the recent accusations levelled at him by Kev Chesham. I would also like to remind Sean Manchester that despite said irrelevant suffix, one of the main reasons why he maintains such animosity towards Kenny Frewin concerns Kenny's utter disgust, strongly conveyed, regarding Sean's own revolting behaviour towards Ms Grunberg. Hardly congruous towards the stereotypical fascist thug which he likes to pigeonhole Mr Frewin as; more a case of projection one thinks. Sean Manchester will now predictably go off on a diatribe about how I wasn't even born then. Yawn. I know both the people I have been discussing above personally, and am well informed as to their opinions and memories of Sean's malice and stirring, so I think that point is rendered null and void. Unless one assumes that Sean might be capable of telling the truth sometimes. In which case bigger fool 'one'.
    That aside, Anthony, I would be interested to hear your response regarding the ghost hoax issue.

    Della Farrant

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'So says Mr Anthony Hogg!', yes, Mr. Hogg does say that. If you're going out of your way to decry the vampire 'hoax', then you'll have to acknowledge your role in its 'creation'.

      That's why you previously said: 'The worst I did was to go along with another person's innane [sic] wild assertions about a "blood-sucking vampire", but again, this was only because this was the "angle" the Press and television wanted at the time - "vampires" apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV.'

      As I also said, you alleged Manchester was a member of the BOS, and you were more than happy to let him promote the vampire theory (and leadership of the organisation!) to the press. That makes you complicit. Of course, you haven't avoided 'cashing in' on the vampire angle, yourself. It takes two to tango.

      You didn't really mention much about sources, so much as relate anecdotes and hearsay. Not quite the same thing.

      In terms of 'It's rather sad really that Mr Hogg is forced to rely only on a couple of 40 year old letters to a local newspaper which serviced a very small community, and from people who signed in their own names and were only expressing their opinions which have never been retracted', once again, you're clearly downplaying how suss their involvement was. These weren't randoms, but a decent proportion of your acquaintances who wrote into the paper - again, with no disclosure of your relationship to them.

      Della,

      'The numbers of people who report seeing ghosts far outweighs the number of people who report (seriously, supposedly) seeing vampires', the same 'evidence' could be given for cases of mass hysteria. There are other inherent flaws in the logic too, namely 1) all reports must be independently verified, 2) the verification process implies actual proof of supernatural activity, something I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear about, 3) the implication being that many of these reports 'matched'. They didn't - something also acknowledged by folklorist, Bill Ellis - and anyone who takes a careful read through the various, contemporary accounts.

      In terms of the 'ghost hoax' issue, I have previously called upon Arminius, et. al. to put their money where their mouth is. They allege that Hill has a tape or tapes of Farrant confessing to the hoax, to which I say: prove it. The fact that this claim originates from secondhand sources does not help their case.

      As to the letter-writers, it's become increasingly clear that Manchester and Farrant had acquaintance with a sizable portion of the respondents, which tells me two things 1) it screams 'set up', 2) the Ham & High must've received considerably fewer replies than we think, if the ones they did publish, featured responses from several associates.

      Delete
    2. David,

      You asked, how do I 'explain the comments made in the best selling French magazine Entrevue that stated the photographs of a decomposing vampire (or more precisely, a copy of a British TV program from which these were taken) were fakes?'

      I have not read the original articles in 'Entervue', so I will draw about Kev Demant's article for commentary. See: http://plan9.150m.com/godsave-entervue.htm

      The article doesn't refer to the vampire pics as fakes, but does give coverage to Frank Thorne's take on Manchester's character and his involvement in the 'phoney Nazi' scandal, etc. If you have any sources in 'Entervue' to counter that, by all means, share them.

      'THAT is the point I am sure we are all waiting for you to answer, Anthony', You're the only one who's asked - and the only one disingenuously 'waiting'. I believe that's called 'pulling something out of your ass'.

      You've obviously performed this magic trick as a counter to take the 'heat' off the coverage I've given to your spurious claims, revisionism and whitewashing. Some people might be gullible enough to fall for this ruse; I'm not.

      I hope that answers your question.

      Delete
  9. "David Farrant and Sean Manchester became the main ‘players’ in the Highgate Vampire saga via the media, and still utilise it for their own ends." (Entry was posted on 16 April 2012 by Anthony Hogg in Blogs)

    How exactly does Seán Manchester "utilise" the Highgate Vampire case for his "own ends" when he refuses to any longer be interviewed about it?


    "Seán Manchester has given his final interview on the Highgate Vampire case." (27 February 2011)


    Link: http://vampireresearchsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/last-highgate-vampire-interview.html


    Confirmed at: http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/LastInterview.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can post the link to my quote, Arminius. You don't just have to post links to pro-Manchester sites. Give people a chance to read the material you're selectively citing.

      How does Manny do it? By 'no longer', you mean last year. That's still a forty year gap. He has volumes of online writings on the subject and his got you guys to carry the banner and isn't above forwarding anti-Farrants with private material so the vendetta can carry on while he keeps his hands 'clean' (as amusing as this ruse is).

      He still sells the books and his webpages are lined with links to his bookshop. Hell, even his Blogger profile's 'website' is actually a link to his bookshop. That's how.

      Delete
  10. "Still one of the Vámbéry twins (or is that clones?) has now stepped ...into the breach. Unfortunately however it is the evil twin who is still out to stalk and track down the fair Della! He sure seems to have an decidedly unhealthy (possibly sexual?) obsession with Mrs Farrant. Maybe BSM should remind him of the tenth commandment: 'you shall not covet your neighbour's wife'." (Entry was posted by Redmond McWilliams on The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Association Society forum)

    Would you care to explain what I have said that you imagination amounts to a "decidedly unhealthy (possibly sexual?) obsession with 'Mrs Farrant'"?

    If anything, "Della Farrant" is the one who has an unhealthy obsession with Seán Manchester! Just take a look at her blog "The Devil's Concubine." My blog about her is nothing more than a rebuttal to the falsehood published by this female acting as yet another mouthpiece for David Farrant.

    I am not stalking "Della" - far from it! - and would not have mentioned her on here at all had she not posted unsupported allegations of a malicious nature about Seán Manchester with whom she has a worrying preoccupation.

    Please be my guest and reproduce anything I have said that you can find to support your silly accusation that I "covet" this highly disturbed woman who is no more married to David Farrant that you are, Redmond.


    http://della-farrant.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll leave that for Red to answer, but you do seem particularly obsessed by her. I mean, you actually created a blog DEVOTED to her ('The strange case of Della Farrant'). That's pretty suss.

      As to not stalking her...hahahha! Who's leg are you trying to pull, mate? You raided a Facebook page in an attempt to 'expose' her...yet without bothering to verify that her and Christine are one and the same person. It hasn't even stopped you writing about Christine's husband, either. Not only that, you also said:

      'My final question to "Della Farrant," following both her and David Farrant's publicised announcement that they married on or around Hallowe'en 2011, why is there no registration of this marriage at the public records office? Why, indeed, can no marriage certificate be found that would her his third wife?'

      Which, of course, implies you've actually tried to seek out her marriage details! Stalker: that's you all over.

      Delete
  11. Addendum:

    You'd know all about "evil stalkers," Redmond, being a close friend of one.*


    * http://theinhumantouch.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Arminius Vámbéry:

    "Would you care to explain what I have said that you imagination amounts to a "decidedly unhealthy (possibly sexual?) obsession with 'Mrs Farrant'"?"

    You tell me! I'm not the one that has created an entire blog devoted to her! What other motivation do you have? I'm with Freud (and Wheatley) on this one: In the end it usually all boils down to sex!

    "If anything, "Della Farrant" is the one who has an unhealthy obsession with Seán Manchester! Just take a look at her blog "The Devil's Concubine." My blog about her is nothing more than a rebuttal to the falsehood published by this female acting as yet another mouthpiece for David Farrant.

    I am not stalking "Della" - far from it! - and would not have mentioned her on here at all had she not posted unsupported allegations of a malicious nature about Seán Manchester with whom she has a worrying preoccupation.

    Please be my guest and reproduce anything I have said that you can find to support your silly accusation that I "covet" this highly disturbed woman who is no more married to David Farrant that you are, Redmond."

    Take a good look again at your blog... but with a more objective eye this time. If you were someone who just happened to chance upon it and read it's contents, just what conclusions would you draw from it? I'll leave you to ponder that question for the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'My blog about her is nothing more than a rebuttal to the falsehood published by this female acting as yet another mouthpiece for David Farrant', says the person who plagiarised Manchester's blog.

      Pot. Kettle. Black, 'Arminius'. Sure, Della sympathises with Farrant's pov and even married the bugger, but by your own logic, you're just as biased yourself, even acknowleding yourself as a 'Manchester sympathiser', which, of course, would make you hostile to her and other critics.

      I suggest you read her intro to 'Out of the shadows' (2011), as it renders a fairly balanced view of the case (and even spares space for some criticisms of her hubbie).

      Delete
  13. “I have some questions, but, before I put them to "Della Farrant," I would like to state here and now that I am the genuine "Arminius Vámbéry" (obviously a username to protect my identity) and not the impersonator who has used my nom-de-plume, icon and exact profile description on a hate blog to personally attack Seán Manchester with the familiar regurgitated malice that originates exclusively from David Farrant whom "Della" now assists.”

    Lets get something absolutely clear Sean: I will NOT answer any questions you put to me here (or anywhere else)whilst you continue to address myself under your pseudonyn "Arminious Vambery". You have used this alias to contact numerous people on Facebook (not least my listed Friends there) and nearly everyone has seen through your little guise and realise that it is really yourself Mr.Sean Manchester. You use aliases because you are too much of a coward to make your hurtful (indeed, vile) allegations about others, and then attempt to 'camouflage' your accusations by pretending to be a 'Christian 'bishop' which you most definitely are NOT. You are the ultimate hypocrite Sean, and a gutless one at that! Your ex-friend and associate, Kev Chesham, has recently exposed the extent of the true modus operandi behind your bogus 'religious' life style i.e. as an active sympathiser of 3rd Reich policies, and, in accordance with these, you try and intimidate other innocent people.
    Well I for one, will not be intimidated in such a manner; and neither will I answer your puerile questions put to myself put to me under your bogus alias "Arminious Vambery".
    People all realise that it is really yourself, Sean. And no amount of your added lies will ever be able to change that.
    Yours most sincerely,

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'He cannot help himself. He is like a man possessed.

    'Seán Manchester and the late Christopher Neil-Smith (also a priest) believe Farrant is possessed, as do a number of other Christians aware of the facts.'

    Ok, and? Many Christians also know that possession can stem from dabbling with the occult. By the same logic, Manchester, himself, may be possessed. He does occupy a priestly position, yet lies, steals (plagiarises), maligns and has tried to cover up his involvement with the occult, including conducting necromantic rituals.

    Oh, and he does have a penchant for alternating 'identities'. I haven't actually seen you profess a belief in Christianity, so do you think Farrant is actually possessed or are you just relaying something that only two named people (one deceased) think? If so, why?

    'If you want to know who is really "hostile," Anthony, get "Della" to delete all references to Seán Manchester and I will delete the blog refuting them. It won't happen because, like her friend Farrant, she thrives on hostility.'

    Ah, blackmail. Firstly, you're not in a position to make such demands. Second, it completely contravenes Manchester's advised approach. Therefore, you're not actually 'defending' him, but waging a vendetta of your own. Her crime? Saying iffy things about Manchester. That's not really any of your business, especially as you've been deceased since 1913. Ladies are allowed to speak out and be critical in the 21st century. Them's the breaks.

    'I have not asked any questions of David Farrant who couldn't give a straight or honest answer if his life depended on it, and do not intend asking him any.'

    Yeah, I noticed that. Dave's response implied that *he* was actually Della. Silly bugger.

    'As for the Kevin Chesham character whose mental state has drastically deteriorated, probably explaining his descent into becoming Farrant's paranoid Quisling, I cannot possibly improve on what Seán Manchester has said about this revolting little man.'

    A bit harsh. Seeing as you're not personally acquainted with Chesham, perhaps you should give him more credit. At the end of the day, it's one man's word against the other. In Chesham's case, there's more reason to believe him than Manchester, especially as he's supplied photographic evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'Farrant searched out Chesham and immediately sent him malicious mail about Seán Manchester. What Farrant didn't realise at the time was that Chesham already had his own agenda.'

    Like I said before, one man's word against the other. You're presenting it as an 'open and shut' case, when your 'counter-evidence' is relying on Manchester's counter-claim, i.e. a biased source. After all, you've expressed no acquaintance with Chesham, yourself.

    Apart from that, Chesham's 'agenda' is pure speculation on Manchester's behalf, which you're merely regurgitating here. Read Manchester's blog, carefully: at no point does he actually prove, through any kind of documentation or reliable evidence, that Chesham was 'out to get him' prior their falling out.

    If Manchester was as familiar with Chesham's supposed right-wing leanings as he makes himself out to be, then their current revelation is merely a case of 'sour grapes', rather than moral indignation at his alignment with such despicable entities in the first place. That means Manchester's simply waging a vendetta perpetuated by yourself.

    With that in mind, I suggest Manchester (a Bishop, remember), crack open his Bible and turn to Matthew 5:38-42 and Luke 6:27-31. That should stem his hyperbolic ravings a bit.

    You've gotta look at both sides of the story. Chesham's so-called 'agenda' could equally have stemmed from moral outrage at Manchester's (alleged) pro-Nazi leanings, in accordance with Chesham's claims. His claims aren't behind a hijacked identity, either. Unlike yours.

    As of this writing, we're yet to see Chesham's 'Nazi room'...but we've seen Manchester's. That's pretty telling in its own right. I'm certainly familiar with Manchester's rebuttal, but saying it's a room full of 'miliaria' is patently nonsense on closer inspection of its contents.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'I'm Jewish, but I would agree with the two priests who openly state that he is demonically possessed. It would explain an awful lot.'

    You're Jewish? Wow, just like the REAL Arminius! What a startling coincidence! And you agree with two Christian priests - one of who you happen to plagiarise from? Amazing.

    I'm surprised you haven't suggested Farrant be exorcised by a rabbi. Have you one on the matter? Surely that'd be more in line with your theology.

    I must say, I'm surprised you overlooked Manchester's qualifications for possession. Ok, I'm not really.

    'It was not a "demand." It was an offer. One that so far has been ignored.'

    Pardon me, not a demand: blackmail.

    'Yet any of the Farrant mob saying "iffy" things about Seán Manchester and his sympathisers responding in their own right about those attacks somehow automatically becomes your business? How does that work?'

    Because your rebuttals are filled with the calumny you claim to be responding to. I'm restoring the balance. It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.

    'As has Seán Manchester on his refutation blog (link previously provided), yet you skirt around Chesham giving fascist salutes, posing in Berlin next to a portrait of Hitler, looking like an archetypal skinhead thug and writing letters praising the British Union of Fascists' leader.'

    I haven't skirted any of that. Indeed, I've addressed it on my blog. Problem with Manny's photos is that they're also horribly photoshopped. I mean...horribly.

    There's one pic of him giving a fascist salute...and he looks kind of bewildered by it. The picture of him next to Hitler? That proves nothing, except that...it's Kev Chesham...standing next to a picture of Adolf Hitler.

    In terms of praising the BFU leader, I've mentioned that on my forum. Firstly, how do we know the letter's genuine? Second, who's it actually addressed to? If anything, it could probably prove that Chesham shared fascist sympathies with Manchester - the same guy who reproduced the letter.

    'If you feel there is "more reason" to believe Chesham it only reveals to me how far you are lodged in the grasp of those, many of whom are your friends, who support Farrant because of their own transparent anti-Seán Manchester prejudice.'

    No, it means that unlike yourself, I don't swallow everything Manny says as gospel. From personal experience, I've seen Manchester's right-wing leanings exhibited. I've seen the pics. If that was Farrant standing in a Nazi room, but I bet you'd be the first to 'charge' him with such associations. But because it's Manchester...

    It's all about context. Here's my say on the whole thing:

    http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/ja-mein-bischof.html
    http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/rebutting-nazi-room.html

    You'll notice that unlike Manchester and yourself, I actually mention rebuttals and even post links to the material in question, so readers can make up their own minds.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The majority of my posted comments have been summarily deleted.

    Those posts attacking Seán Manchester, of course, remain intact.

    Is that the sort of "liberalism" and "democracy" you subscribe to?

    As Anthony Hogg has linked to his Nazi blogs, I feel it only fair and reasonable to also link to Seán Manchester's rebuttal of Chesham's libel.

    http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
  18. You know full well why I have deleted the majority of your comments Arminius. The same reason why I had to remove my own and some of David's and Anthony's and I don't see either of them complaining! Odd that. Speculation over Della Farrant's identity is not up for discussion here - period. Whilst it is good that both you and BSM have heeded their legal statement and have removed much of this stalkerish nonsense from your blogs a lot of it nevertheless still remains. Btw, this blog is not just another vehicle in which you can spread your pro-Manchester propaganda, so when posting here could you please keep to the topic parameters given: only the Highgate Vampire case and those DIRECTLY involved. Of course you can provide a link to BSM'S 'Nazi Room'rebuttal. Though that said as a rebuttal I have to say that it fails on all counts! It's just a real shame that BSM can't provide others with the same opportunity to see both sides of the argument all the same. Our 'The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society' facebook group is simply referred to as either "a McWilliams/Hogg Facebook group", "THCVAS" or simply as "a Highgate Cemetery group!" This will not be happening here so I will provide a link to Anthony's latest blog which covers much of what is being discussed here.

    http://dawwih.wordpress.com/

    To quote Anthony: "You'll notice that unlike Manchester and yourself, I actually mention rebuttals and even post links to the material in question, so readers can make up their own minds."

    Enough said!

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I sent Anthony my old HGV books about 9 months ago, plus some of Catherines. I said he could have them as I didn't have any use for them. Anthony offered to pay the postage but there were some hitches as I didn't have Internet Banking. This matter has been discussed several times without result. That is all I have to say." - Barbara Green (YRHS Facebook group)

    So that's how you got hold of more of Seán Manchester books and a sprinkling of Farrant's booklets, Anthony. And there was me thinking you'd nicked them!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I had a discussion with Red about the removal of the comments. I was against the move - I still am - but he pointed out it was for the sake of the innocent people you and Manchester have targeted, Arminius. I wanted the comments to remain to expose how low both you and Manchester will stoop to targeting critics. But I respect Red's decision, nonetheless. It's his blog, after all and his decision was made with ethical concerns in mind.

    If you're inferring you and Manchester are being targeted for censorship, that's clearly not the case, otherwise he wouldn't've deleted my other comments, David's and his own, too. As Red mentioned. His rationale was clearly to avoid further attacks against the person you falsely identified as Della.

    These got so bad, that an official statement was released by Della and David Farrant.

    What makes your targeting all the more sinister, is that you seek to expose her identity, while keeping your own under wraps...while criticising (as Manchester's also done) people for keeping their identities secret!

    Evidence of more hypocrisy from Manchester and yourself. This isn't an 'attack', but fact. For the record, I keep my identity secret - well, at least specific details on my identity - to avoid stalkers, like yourself, plastering said details online. Indeed, I've also noticed the FoBSM blog has reinstated the 'unmasked' picture of 'me', even though the young man in the photograph isn't myself. Again, an indicator of the depths to which Manchester affiliates will stoop.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What hypocrisy!

    You, Anthony, target people, and have done so for years, whether they are "critics" or not. You stoop to stalking those who want nothing to do with you, as if you have some sort of right to constantly invade their space.

    You talk down to people as if you are the teacher and everyone else are your pupils when, in fact, the reverse is frequently the case. You are less than half the age of those you stalk, and you consider your behaviour as perfectly acceptable. It is not and plenty of people agree with me (even quite a number of members of your joint Facebook group).

    I was not "inferring" anything. You always jump the gun and project your own paranoia onto a given situation. You live on the other side of the world and have no idea of what you are claiming most of the time. You accept people's word and reject other people's word on a a completely arbitary basis. You don't actually know anything. You choose to believe what you want to believe.

    "An official statement was released by Della and David Farrant"? What exactly makes their comments "official"? Is it because they said it's "official," and was that enough for you to make it "official"? All the time you reveal your inability to be what you claim to be, ie impartial.

    You wouldn't know a "fact," Anthony, if you walked straight into one and it punched you in the face! You cannot distinguish between facts and unsupported allegations. You claim you know for a fact a certain person's identity when you have absolutely no idea. You have an opinion. That's all.

    You keep your own identity secret because you're a thirty-year-old wannabe who lives in front of his computer spending every day and most nights stalking people like David Farrant and, most especially, Seán Manchester.

    You have "plastered" a full address on the internet which is associated with Seán Manchester, and you did it on a blog designed to incite hatred against him. Have you done the same about anyone else? No, you haven't.

    The "depths" to which you are willing to stoop is truly mind-boggling. Even to the extent of persuading Barbara Green to send you, free of charge, all her books written by Seán Manchester, plus other self-published items from Seán Manchester's adversary. Why would you be interested in books about Christianity and historical figures written by someone you don't like and doesn't want anything to do with you unless you are in the business of stalking that person? You are a compulsive stalker, Anthony, and plenty of other people have made the same observation.

    And, to cap it all, you didn't even cover the cost of postage from the UK to Australia, as you had promised Barbara Green.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'You, Anthony, target people, and have done so for years, whether they are "critics" or not. You stoop to stalking those who want nothing to do with you, as if you have some sort of right to constantly invade their space.'

    Who are you referring to, exactly?

    'You talk down to people as if you are the teacher and everyone else are your pupils when, in fact, the reverse is frequently the case.'

    If I do, you're the only one who's complained about it. As to the 'reverse' being the case, no, I don't think so.

    'You are less than half the age of those you stalk, and you consider your behaviour as perfectly acceptable. It is not and plenty of people agree with me (even quite a number of members of your joint Facebook group).'

    How old am I and who do I stalk? Who are the 'plenty' of people you're referring to? No one on the group, except maybe the not-an-independent-researcher, Veb, have said anything along those lines.

    'I was not "inferring" anything. You always jump the gun and project your own paranoia onto a given situation.'

    No, I discuss it. That's why I said 'if' you're inferring. You're allowed to counter it.

    'You live on the other side of the world and have no idea of what you are claiming most of the time.'

    Where I live is as irrelevant as where you do. As to not having an idea of what I claim, what an utterly bizarre statement, especially as I go out of my way to explain where I'm coming from. If you can't fathom it, that's your problem, not mine.

    'You accept people's word and reject other people's word on a a completely arbitary basis. You don't actually know anything. You choose to believe what you want to believe.'

    Says the Manchester 'sympathiser' and person who falsely identified Della. I weigh up what people say. I ask for evidence. I look for context, etc. In some cases, I will be forced to accept someone's word - doesn't mean I always believe it.

    '"An official statement was released by Della and David Farrant"? What exactly makes their comments "official"? Is it because they said it's "official," and was that enough for you to make it "official"?'

    Yes. It's certainly more reliable than the word of a cyberstalker (you), who didn't even establish a 'case' for her 'actual' identity, yet took the time to craft an entire blog devoted to her.

    'All the time you reveal your inability to be what you claim to be, ie impartial.'

    Based on me accepting a single official statement? That's a daft conclusion. It's also hypocritical for someone who facetiously calls themselves a 'Manchester sympathiser' to talk to me about impartiality.

    'You wouldn't know a "fact," Anthony, if you walked straight into one and it punched you in the face!'

    Actually, I would. For example, I established that Manchester's a plagiarist and a hypocrite via evidence. That's fact.

    'You cannot distinguish between facts and unsupported allegations. You claim you know for a fact a certain person's identity when you have absolutely no idea. You have an opinion. That's all.'

    Vague allusions and hyperbole are not the same as genuine 'charges'. Provide actual examples, so I can address them, properly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'You keep your own identity secret because you're a thirty-year-old wannabe who lives in front of his computer spending every day and most nights stalking people like David Farrant and, most especially, Seán Manchester.'

    Who says I'm 30? I don't live in front of my computer, I do other things, too. I write about public personas involved in a public case. Many others do the same. Problem? I can only gather that your hostility's born from me exposing your complete disregard for Manchester's 'word' on critics, which shows how much you actually respect the man, i.e. not much.

    'You have "plastered" a full address on the internet which is associated with Seán Manchester, and you did it on a blog designed to incite hatred against him. Have you done the same about anyone else? No, you haven't.'

    I posted Gothic Press' business address on my blog. In a footnote. Prior that, the FoBSM blog - which Manchester endorses - attempted to post my home address on their blog, not to mention distributing an 'unmasked' picture of someone who isn't me. My blog isn't designed to incite hatred against him, but to expose various facets of the case. For instance, that he's a plagiarist.

    Your attack is hypocritical and absurd in the extreme.

    'The "depths" to which you are willing to stoop is truly mind-boggling. Even to the extent of persuading Barbara Green to send you, free of charge, all her books written by Seán Manchester, plus other self-published items from Seán Manchester's adversary.'

    I didn't request them 'for free'. She offered, after I asked if she had any such material lying about. Ask before making accusations. And no, not 'all'. You don't even know what she sent me. lol

    'Why would you be interested in books about Christianity and historical figures written by someone you don't like and doesn't want anything to do with you unless you are in the business of stalking that person? You are a compulsive stalker, Anthony, and plenty of other people have made the same observation.'

    Manchester does want something to do with me, that's the beauty of it. He and his associates - like yourself and the FoBSM - enjoy writing about me. They clearly get a big kick out of it. They're also particularly interested in me, as a person, because they've attempted to expose me on the 'net. If that's not a fascination with me, I dunno what is.

    I don't hate Manchester, if that's what you're saying. And, as I said before, you don't even know what was sent to me, so you can't speak conclusively on that subject.

    By 'plenty of other people', you're referring to stalkers like yourself, the FoBSM and Manchester - all biased, abusive and hypocritical sources.

    'And, to cap it all, you didn't even cover the cost of postage from the UK to Australia, as you had promised Barbara Green.'

    Barbara didn't request postage cover - I offered it. The only hang-up is in how to pay for it. But of course, you didn't know that. Try asking questions instead of being hostile and abusive.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Who are you referring to, exactly?"

    Obviously Seán Manchester, for a start, but also to a lesser extent David Farrant. If you were able to discover others who were associated in some way from that time, no doubt they would also be stalked relentlessly by you.

    "As to the 'reverse' being the case, no, I don't think so."

    Well, obviously you think that because you have an inflated sense of your own importance. You are an outsider with precious little knowledge about the case which so obsesses you. You have no knowledge about the more general subject matter surrounding the case in question, ie demonic contagion.

    "No one on the group, except maybe the not-an-independent-researcher, Veb, have said anything along those lines."

    Not to you, Anthony. But they have to others. None of these people have posted anything critical about anyone on THCVAS group. In fact, most of them have not posted anything. What does that tell you? You fail to realise that many of those in your THCVAS group are also members of others groups that are sympathetic to the person you attack daily on The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society group which you and Redmond McWilliams co-administrate and Redmond founded.

    "Where I live is as irrelevant as where you do."

    Not true. You are entirely reliant on the internet, and that is your sole source of "information." I am not dependent on the internet, and reside in close proximity to the people and places relevant to the subject under discussion. I have met some of them (don't even bother to ask me who) from both sides of the divide. I have my opinions, but I also know many facts.

    "Says ... person who falsely identified Della."

    So prove it. I happen to know that I did not falsely identify "Della."

    "Based on me accepting a single official statement?"

    No, based on years of your apologia and bias for one side over the other.

    "It's also hypocritical for someone who facetiously calls themselves a 'Manchester sympathiser' to talk to me about impartiality."

    I am a sympathiser of Seán Manchester, I am not impartial and have never claimed to be impartial. You, on the other hand, have always claimed to be impartial. You are not. In fact, nobody is truly impartial where this matter is concerned.

    "I do other things, too."

    But you don't do a day's work for a day's pay, do you Anthony? How could you? You post on the internet all day long and into the night.

    "The FoBSM blog - which Manchester endorses - attempted to post my home address on their blog."

    Where does he "endorse" that blog? How can they "attempt" to post your address? Either they posted it (as you did), or they didn't post it. Which is it? That was rhetorical, by the way, because I know they did not post it.

    "They clearly get a big kick out of it."

    Prove it. Nobody from either camp is "fascinated" by you, Anthony. You're a bore who has nothing better to do every day of his life than stalk people.

    "Barbara didn't request postage cover - I offered it. The only hang-up is in how to pay for it."

    Have you not heard of PayPal, or an International Money Order?

    "But of course, you didn't know that."

    Yes, I did. It's detailed on an open Facebook group which anyone can read!

    "Try asking questions instead of being hostile and abusive."

    I didn't come here to "ask questions." I came here to refute lies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'Obviously Seán Manchester, for a start, but also to a lesser extent David Farrant. If you were able to discover others who were associated in some way from that time, no doubt they would also be stalked relentlessly by you.'

    How do I 'stalk' them, exactly? And why do you feel you can comment on stalking, being a stalker, yourself?

    'Well, obviously you think that because you have an inflated sense of your own importance. You are an outsider with precious little knowledge about the case which so obsesses you. You have no knowledge about the more general subject matter surrounding the case in question, ie demonic contagion.'

    Again, you're the only one who's mentioned such a thing. And inflated? No, earned. Only a handful of people would be 'insiders', but that doesn't refute public interest in the case. It's not a criticism you'd see levelled at believers, either. Unless, of course, you also believe that people who believe Manchester and Farrant's stories are 'outsiders' and worthy of exclusion, too.

    My knowledge of vampirism ('demonic contagion', as you call it) is pretty good. That's why I was able to refute the VRS's hamfisted 'Vampirological testimony' for the out-of-context hyperbole it largely was.

    'Not to you, Anthony. But they have to others. None of these people have posted anything critical about anyone on THCVAS group. In fact, most of them have not posted anything.'

    Then that leaves your claim bereft of a leg to stand on.

    'What does that tell you?'

    It tells me that members don't have to post if they don't want to. It's up to them. Our numbers are pretty solid, all the same.

    'You fail to realise that many of those in your THCVAS group are also members of others groups that are sympathetic to the person you attack daily on The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society group which you and Redmond McWilliams co-administrate and Redmond founded.'

    Like who? Also, we don't do 'daily attacks'. I don't think you've read through our forum properly.

    'Not true. You are entirely reliant on the internet, and that is your sole source of "information." I am not dependent on the internet, and reside in close proximity to the people and places relevant to the subject under discussion. I have met some of them (don't even bother to ask me who) from both sides of the divide. I have my opinions, but I also know many facts.'

    Yet, I also quote newspaper and magazine articles and books, too. Clearly, the 'net isn't my sole source of info. You are dependent on the 'net, however, as you post links here, and your own writings are plagiarised from other 'net sources. Claiming to 'know' facts isn't the same as establishing them as factual.

    'So prove it. I happen to know that I did not falsely identify "Della."'

    I can not conclusively prove that Della wasn't who you said she was, without compromising her. However, I'll point out that your blog provided no proof that Della was who you said she was, either. The burden of proof - especially as you devoted an entire blog to her - rests on your shoulders. And Manchester's, who aped your 'information'.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 'No, based on years of your apologia and bias for one side over the other.'

    If I criticise the claims of both sides, I'm hardly biased. I see merit and flaws in what both sides say. That's called being 'balanced' and 'fair'. Try it sometime. Indeed, the polarising effect of 'sides', in this case, is also something I'm critical of, too.

    'I am a sympathiser of Seán Manchester, I am not impartial and have never claimed to be impartial. You, on the other hand, have always claimed to be impartial.'

    Then your ability to make fair criticism is inherently flawed. And yes, I'm impartial.

    'You are not. In fact, nobody is truly impartial where this matter is concerned.'

    Really? Then whose 'side' am I on?

    'But you don't do a day's work for a day's pay, do you Anthony? How could you? You post on the internet all day long and into the night.'

    Neither do you. If that's supposed to be a 'criticism', then you're equally 'guilty'. I don't say, because I don't want to be stalked and have more of me details splattered all over the 'net. Simple, really. And no, I don't post on the 'net 24/7. Get a grip, mate.

    'Where does he "endorse" that blog? How can they "attempt" to post your address? Either they posted it (as you did), or they didn't post it. Which is it? That was rhetorical, by the way, because I know they did not post it.'

    'Sean Manchester endorses this post'. That's what you said. And the endorsement regarded your blackmail attempt, re: Della. So, he either endorsed it, or you lied. Pick one.

    How can they 'attempt'? Because the 'home address', as they thought it was, actually belonged to a business. A petrol station, in fact. Much like the attempt to 'identify' Della and, posting an 'unmasked' version of me - they failed.

    'Prove it. Nobody from either camp is "fascinated" by you, Anthony. You're a bore who has nothing better to do every day of his life than stalk people.'

    Prove it? No worries: http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com.au/search?q=anthony+hogg

    'Have you not heard of PayPal, or an International Money Order?'

    Yes, and both options discussed, too.

    'Yes, I did. It's detailed on an open Facebook group which anyone can read!'

    If it was, your quote would've dealt with that. You read too much into it. That's why you need to read things more carefully.

    'I didn't come here to "ask questions." I came here to refute lies.'

    Refuting with hostility and baseless counter-accusations doesn't do a good job of 'refuting lies'. It makes you as bad as what you're pretending to uphold. As I've had to remind you, several times, if this thing gets you too worked up, take Manchester's advice: ignore it. You'll feel better.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "How do I 'stalk' them, exactly? And why do you feel you can comment on stalking, being a stalker, yourself?"

    I'd like to know who I'm stalking!!? Look up the word and then apply it to anything I have done. It doesn't fit. Now apply it to your incessant daily commenting on Seán Manchester on Facebook, blogs (yours and other people's) and forums, eg The Supernatural World forum. That is what stalking comprises.

    "And inflated? No, earned."

    Who says so? You? That's just more evidence of your inflated ego, Anthony. You know next to nothing about the Highgate Vampire case and precious little about the general supernatural topic it concerns. You're first and foremost into fiction when you're not trying to make yourself appear "involved" in something you are not. You are a bandwagoneer, Anthony, that's all. There's plenty of them out there, but not all of them have so much spare time on their hands as you do.

    "Our numbers are pretty solid, all the same."

    Fifty-nine FB members who post no responses to your own provocations and attacks on Seán Manchester, apart from a couple who, if you visit their FB pages, are quite obviously sympathetic to Satanism or some aspect of the dark occult? There are only two people posting. You and your co-administrator.

    "I don't think you've read through our forum properly."

    Yes I have. You are doing Farrant's dirty work for the most part. He certainly couldn't have done a better job himself of harassing Seán Manchester whom you obviously stalk from dawn to dusk and into the night.

    "Yet, I also quote newspaper and magazine articles and books, too."

    Big deal! Even a highly regarded newspaper like the Ham & High couldn't report honestly in their very first issue (27 February 1970) on this topic. They misquoted Seán Manchester and Christopher Neil-Smith, both of whom later refuted the quotes attributed to them. And the press is your source!!!

    "I'll point out that your blog provided no proof that Della was who you said she was."

    I cannot do that without compromising my source, but there is enough circumstantial evidence out there for anyone without a reliable source to still reach a logical deduction that would arrive at the same result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I'd like to know who I'm stalking!!?'

      Della Farrant and, by default, Christine Moloney.

      'Look up the word and then apply it to anything I have done.'

      Your blog, 'The strange case of Della Farrant' pilfered images from Moloney (and her husband's) Facebook account. You monitored it, reproduced private messages from Manchester all in the attempt to expose Della's identity...and got the wrong one in the process. Stalking.

      'It doesn't fit.'

      It does. So much so, that an official statement was written to counter your ludicrous attempts at exposing her.

      'Now apply it to your incessant daily commenting on Seán Manchester on Facebook, blogs (yours and other people's) and forums, eg The Supernatural World forum. That is what stalking comprises.'

      Sure: I don't comment on Manchester daily on either forum. Readers will see that for themselves. So, you're imagining things.

      'Who says so? You?'

      Yep.

      'That's just more evidence of your inflated ego, Anthony.'

      If you say so. Tell it to my blog's 20,000+ hits and the commentary devoted to me by you, the FoBSM and Manchester. Hell, even Dave too.

      'You know next to nothing about the Highgate Vampire case and precious little about the general supernatural topic it concerns.'

      I do, actually, as my blogs reveal.

      'You're first and foremost into fiction when you're not trying to make yourself appear "involved" in something you are not.'

      Funny that you refer to 'fiction' in context with the Highgate vampire case. Another Freudian slip, perhaps.

      I'm involved or I wouldn't be targeted by yourself, the FoBSM, etc. I write extensively on the case. I've been consulted by others - like Kai Roberts - on that basis. Your 'involvement', on the other hand, involves licking Manchester's boots and plagiarising his blog. Look in the mirror, 'Arminius'.

      'You are a bandwagoneer, Anthony, that's all. There's plenty of them out there, but not all of them have so much spare time on their hands as you do.'

      Like I said, no one 'owns' the Highgate vampire. So 'bandwagoneer' is a ludicrous statement.

      'Fifty-nine FB members who post no responses to your own provocations and attacks on Seán Manchester, apart from a couple who, if you visit their FB pages, are quite obviously sympathetic to Satanism or some aspect of the dark occult?'

      It's daft to still be asserting that our forum is devoted, solely, to taking potshots at Manchester - especially as readers will see that's far from the case.

      Delete
    2. 'There are only two people posting. You and your co-administrator.'

      At the moment. The members are still there, though.

      'Yes I have. You are doing Farrant's dirty work for the most part.'

      Your perception, even if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

      'He certainly couldn't have done a better job himself of harassing Seán Manchester whom you obviously stalk from dawn to dusk and into the night.'

      More lunacy. But if you 'know' I stalk him for 24 hours a day (somehow?), then that can only mean...you're stalking me! Big surprise. For the record, no, I don't monitor Manchester's activities as closely as you imply. Pure lunacy on your part.

      'Big deal!'

      Indeed it is, because you said: 'You are entirely reliant on the internet, and that is your sole source of "information."' A blatant lie.

      If you've read my writings properly - as you've suggested - you wouldn't have regurgitated such nonsense. Which tells me you're not here for rational discussion, but to spew hamfisted 'insults' against folk, like myself, critical of Manchester (and rightly so). And, in Della's case, flat-out stalking them. Therefore, your 'refuting lies' claim, is a sham, too.

      'And the press is your source!!!'

      ...and anyone who writes on the case, too, because that's where the 'story' started. Note, your idol, Manchester, also cites press reports in his writings. You've aped that practice on your plagiarised blog, 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire'. And now you're saying press reports are unreliable?

      Make up your mind, Arminius.

      'I cannot do that without compromising my source, but there is enough circumstantial evidence out there for anyone without a reliable source to still reach a logical deduction that would arrive at the same result.'

      Copying what I said (re: compromising), then calling on 'circumstantial evidence', but providing none, is not proving your case. When you go to the length of stalking someone to expose someone else, then following it up with blackmail, you're expected to have a pretty strong case to fall back on. You don't.

      By the same logic, we could say Chesham was right about Manchester being a Nazi lover all along. Thanks for clarifying, Arminius.

      Delete
  28. "If I criticise the claims of both sides, I'm hardly biased."

    That's a tactic to try and make yourself appear more credible. Plenty of people have seen through it. You use disinformation sourced with Farrant to attack Seán Manchester on a scale out of all proportion to your very mild asides occasionally aimed at Farrant himself. When did you last really go for an all out assault on Farrant? Did you ever really hold Farrant to account in an uncompromising way? When did last launch a major assault on Seán Manchester? The evidence obviously speaks for itself.

    "Really? Then whose 'side' am I on?"

    The Farrant camp without being too close to Farrant himself. You are on friendly terms with Jamie Farrant (Farrant's eldest son), "Della Farrant," Redmond McWilliams, Don Ecker, Steve Genier, Gareth Davies, Kai Roberts and goodness knows how many others who support Farrant's hate campaign against Seán Manchester. You are not on friendly terms with one person sympathetic to Seán Manchester, which sort of indicates where your partiality lies.

    "Neither do you. If that's supposed to be a 'criticism', then you're equally 'guilty'."

    I am not thirty-years-of age. You are. That's the difference. I was around and present at the time when the fur was flying in and around Highgate. Farrant is a youngster compared to me. Had your parents even met when all this was happening at the turn of the 1970s? Get a grip.

    "'Sean Manchester endorses this post'. That's what you said. And the endorsement regarded your blackmail attempt."

    He endorsed one official statement made by me with regard to the blackmail attempt being attempted by David Farrant and you-know-who ("Della"). What has that to do with the false allegation you made, ie "The FoBSM blog - which Manchester endorses - attempted to post my home address on their blog." You have failed to show that he endorsed the FoBSM blog. All you have done is refer to an official statement made by one person, namely me, issued to counter another "official statement" spammed across the internet by Farrant. You have also failed to demonstrate how the FoBSM "attempted" to post your address. Did they or did they not post your address. Answer: Not!

    "Yes, and both options discussed, too."

    Yet still no sign of the promised £40 to Barbara Green after all this time.

    "As I've had to remind you, several times, if this thing gets you too worked up, take Manchester's advice: ignore it. You'll feel better."

    That's just the point, Anthony, you don't "have to remind" me or anyone else about anything. Who are you to tell me to ignore your personal attacks on Seán Manchester? Why make them in the first place? I am only here because of your daily misrepresentation of Seán Manchester. Why not take the advice you offer me yourself? You'll feel much better!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'That's a tactic to try and make yourself appear more credible.'

      You said that I'm biased towards one side. When I pointed out I critique both sides, you say it's a 'tactic'. Wow. You've lost the plot.

      'Plenty of people have seen through it.'

      Like who?

      'You use disinformation sourced with Farrant to attack Seán Manchester on a scale out of all proportion to your very mild asides occasionally aimed at Farrant himself.'

      Like?

      'When did you last really go for an all out assault on Farrant? Did you ever really hold Farrant to account in an uncompromising way?'

      Yes. Again, read my blog. Don't just mash away at the keyboard.

      'When did last launch a major assault on Seán Manchester? The evidence obviously speaks for itself.'

      Provide it.

      'The Farrant camp without being too close to Farrant himself. You are on friendly terms with Jamie Farrant (Farrant's eldest son), "Della Farrant," Redmond McWilliams, Don Ecker, Steve Genier, Gareth Davies, Kai Roberts and goodness knows how many others who support Farrant's hate campaign against Seán Manchester.'

      I am friends with a few of his associates. Farrant and Manchester were once associates, too. By that logic, Manchester is in 'Farrant's camp', too. Thanks for clarifying, Arminius.

      And Kai could hardly be called a member of Farrant's 'camp'...which you'd know if you actually read his book.

      'You are not on friendly terms with one person sympathetic to Seán Manchester, which sort of indicates where your partiality lies.'

      More hysteria, punctuated by a lie. I'm on good terms with 'Timelord'. He's a Manchester sympathiser. Manchester's most vocal 'sympathisers', however, are small in number and generally hostile (indeed, the same usernames keep popping up), as you've demonstrated here. They're welcome to join our forum, though. Hopefully, they can behave more rationally and calmly than yourself.

      'I am not thirty-years-of age. You are. That's the difference.'

      So first I'm 30, now I'm 33. You must be pulling numbers out of a hat.

      'I was around and present at the time when the fur was flying in and around Highgate. Farrant is a youngster compared to me.'

      Sure, ok Arminius... Speaking of which, you haven't yet disclosed what your actual involvement with the case was, yet attempt to belittle others - like me - who write about it. Your only 'qualification' seems to be that you were 'around'. You'll have to do better than that.

      'Had your parents even met when all this was happening at the turn of the 1970s? Get a grip.'

      Good, if somewhat bizarre, question. Why would you like to know? What's the relevance of that? As to 'Get a grip', I see you've moved on from plagiarising Manchester to copying me, as we'll see shortly...

      'He endorsed one official statement made by me with regard to the blackmail attempt being attempted by David Farrant and you-know-who ("Della").'

      And now you're copying my 'blackmail' charge but flipping it on Farrant...even if it actually applies to you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

      You alleged Manchester endorsed your post, which means he also endorsed a blackmail threat. If you're a 'friend' of his, you're doing a great job of making him look like a total butthole. Oh, and a coward, too - seeing as Manchester hasn't actually offered any public endorsements.

      Delete
    2. 'What has that to do with the false allegation you made, ie "The FoBSM blog - which Manchester endorses - attempted to post my home address on their blog."'

      It's not a false allegation. It was witnessed by other members of the SNW forum and I saved the original page. When the true location was exposed, the address was removed. But I notice they've retained the 'unmasked' picture, which, again, isn't me. So stalking and false attribution is something you guys have in common.

      I haven't failed to show he endorses it.

      'All you have done is refer to an official statement made by one person, namely me, issued to counter another "official statement" spammed across the internet by Farrant.'

      Your 'official statement' was blackmail, which also implicated Manchester. Which is pretty odd, considering he doesn't allow anyone to speak on his behalf. Of course, if you were really his friend, you'd know that.

      The official statement released by Farrant, was repudiating the false allegations made by yourself, re: Della's identity. Not the same thing. And 'spammed across the internet' is a bit of a stretch for something featured on three blogs. I suggest you familiarise yourself with what internet 'spam' actually is.

      'You have also failed to demonstrate how the FoBSM "attempted" to post your address.'

      Not at all. It's just that you refuse to listen.

      'Did they or did they not post your address. Answer: Not!'

      They posted an address they thought was mine, in conjunction with a picture of someone they think is me ('unmasked'). You must be pretty slow on the uptake; I've explained this to you several times already.

      'Yet still no sign of the promised £40 to Barbara Green after all this time.'

      As I said, we've been discussing it. Just don't expect a press release when it's paid. Why it even concerns you at all, is a bit of a mystery. Care to explain?

      'That's just the point, Anthony, you don't "have to remind" me or anyone else about anything. Who are you to tell me to ignore your personal attacks on Seán Manchester?'

      You claim Manchester is your mate. I point out what Manchester's said, re: advice. You ignore it. I'm saying you're better off listening to him, because you get incredibly steamed up. Worse, your efforts at 'defending' only make him look worse, especially when you claim he endorses blackmail.

      Also what personal attacks have I made against him? You've already deluded yourself into thinking I post negative things about him 24/7, so what are you inferring here?

      'Why make them in the first place? I am only here because of your daily misrepresentation of Seán Manchester.'

      See what I mean? Lunacy.

      'Why not take the advice you offer me yourself?'

      Because I'm confident in what I say. I can back what I say. If I slip up, I acknowledge it.

      I don't need to verbally attack people and stalk them to get my point across...with 'circumstantial evidence' and blackmail, no less. I use their own material.

      Your 'arguments' here have devolved into little more than vomit. I mean, me, stalking Manchester 24/7? That's what your posts are now boiling down to, even if though that 'charge' is patently ludicrous.

      It's a real shame, too, because we could be having a rational discussion. So, I'll get the ball rolling: what exactly is your 'position' in the Highgate case? Were you personally involved in its investigation?

      Do you believe, 100%, in Manchester's account?

      Delete
  29. "Farrant and Manchester were once associates."

    They were not at any time "associates."

    They were acquainted through Farrant writing to the press about "ghost" sightings which, of course, we now know to be a hoax on the part of Farrant.

    "I am friends with a few of his associates."

    You are a friend of a great many of David Farrant's friends and associates. You are a friend of none of Seán Manchester's friends and associates. That fact speaks volumes.

    "And Kai could hardly be called a member of Farrant's 'camp'."

    Yet Farrant is a registered FB friend of Kai Roberts who is anti-Christian and pro-witchcraft/paganism/occultism. Though Kai Roberts approached Seán Manchester via Facebook for assistance, he refused to accept Seán Manchester as a FB friend and, according to Seán Manchester, made some scathing comments in general about Christianity for which Kai has absolutely no time. Kai Roberts' publisher is also a registered FB friend of David Farrant. There are statements made about Seán Manchester in Grave Concerns that are patently untrue. Even you reproduced one passage on your FB group when you first read Kai's book that attests to this.

    "I'm on good terms with 'Timelord'. He's a Manchester sympathiser."

    Timelord - frequently falsely accused by Farrant and his little helper "Della" of being Seán Manchester - is certainly sympathetic towards Seán Manchester but, and I have no problem with this, does not share his spiritual, religious and many other beliefs. He came to the table impartial, but his experience and observation over time has made him partial and he is inclined to believe Seán Manchester most of the time. I challenge your claim, however, that you are "on good terms with Timelord." How do you define "good terms"? Are you registered FB friends, for example?

    "So first I'm 30, now I'm 33. You must be pulling numbers out of a hat."

    Where did "33" come from? I have never said you are thirty-three; especially as you are thirty.

    "Why would you like to know?"

    It was rhetorical - a throw-away line. Lighten up!

    "'[Anthony Hogg] endorsed one official statement made by me with regard to the blackmail attempt being attempted by David Farrant and you-know-who ("Della").'" ... "And now you're copying my 'blackmail' charge but flipping it on Farrant...even if it actually applies to you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way."

    Sorry, but it does. And if you think playing wiff waff with a question gets you off the hook, think again ...

    ... it does not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'They were not at any time "associates."'

      Contemporary reports say otherwise.

      'They were acquainted through Farrant writing to the press about "ghost" sightings which, of course, we now know to be a hoax on the part of Farrant.'

      That hasn't been conclusively proven.

      'You are a friend of a great many of David Farrant's friends and associates. You are a friend of none of Seán Manchester's friends and associates. That fact speaks volumes.'

      Yes, and I've explained why. Several times. You're also omitting 'Timelord' from Manchester's friends list. Again.

      'Yet Farrant is a registered FB friend of Kai Roberts who is anti-Christian and pro-witchcraft/paganism/occultism.'

      And?

      'Though Kai Roberts approached Seán Manchester via Facebook for assistance, he refused to accept Seán Manchester as a FB friend and, according to Seán Manchester, made some scathing comments in general about Christianity for which Kai has absolutely no time.'

      Like what? Have you actually read their correspondence?

      'Kai Roberts' publisher is also a registered FB friend of David Farrant.'

      And?

      'There are statements made about Seán Manchester in Grave Concerns that are patently untrue. Even you reproduced one passage on your FB group when you first read Kai's book that attests to this.'

      Then you'd also note the criticisms made about Farrant, yet keep insisting that Roberts is in Farrant's 'camp'. Being friends with someone doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with them or promote their agenda.

      'Timelord - frequently falsely accused by Farrant and his little helper "Della" of being Seán Manchester - is certainly sympathetic towards Seán Manchester but, and I have no problem with this, does not share his spiritual, religious and many other beliefs.'

      Ah, finally! An acknowledgement. As I said, your claim that I was friend with no one sympathetic to Manchester, is a lie.

      'He came to the table impartial, but his experience and observation over time has made him partial and he is inclined to believe Seán Manchester most of the time. I challenge your claim, however, that you are "on good terms with Timelord." How do you define "good terms"? Are you registered FB friends, for example?'

      You seem to have a hang up on FB friends, as if that was conclusive proof of friendship. Friendship takes many forms. I'm on good terms with him, that's all you need to know. He'll back me up.

      'Where did "33" come from? I have never said you are thirty-three; especially as you are thirty.'

      Misread that. Also, no, I'm not.

      'Sorry, but it does. And if you think playing wiff waff with a question gets you off the hook, think again ...'

      Not at all. You're comparing their official statement with your blackmail. They're not the same thing, no matter how much you try to 'spin' it.

      Delete
  30. "Your 'official statement' was blackmail, which also implicated Manchester. Which is pretty odd, considering he doesn't allow anyone to speak on his behalf. Of course, if you were really his friend, you'd know that."

    Try to learn what words actually mean, Anthony. My statement is what is called an offer, which I carried out in part without the other side conceding anything. Blackmail, on the other hand, is when a threat is made unless certain actions are undertaken. Now read Farrant's "official" statement again. That is what is called blackmail. Understand now?

    "The official statement released by Farrant, was repudiating the false allegations made by yourself, re: Della's identity."

    It repudiated nothing and resorted to outright blackmail. The allegation I (and quite a number of other people) have made about "Della's" true identity IS NOT FALSE. I stand by it one hundred percent.

    "As I said, we've been discussing it. Just don't expect a press release when it's paid. Why it even concerns you at all, is a bit of a mystery. Care to explain?"

    I feel it concerns all parties that you clandestinely approached Barbara Green (aka "demonflyonthewall") to obtain on the cheap books written by Seán Manchester and other material to probably use against him in the future in some unpleasant way. Why wouldn't you order them like everyone else? Before you say you don't want his publisher to have your address, well, Barbara Green's has it now, doesn't she? If you ever intended to cover the postage cost to Australia for all this material you would have coughed up the £40 months back when it was first offered by you.

    "See what I mean? Lunacy."

    What is lunacy, Anthony, is your obsessive posting about Seán Manchester every day of your life for years on end. Other people have reached the same conclusion, including members of your THCVAS group, and if you say otherwise you are in serious denial. I can see no difference between your obsession and cyber-stalking.

    "Your 'arguments' here have devolved into little more than vomit."

    My arguments are supported by a fair number of other people who do not want to become involved but all the same comment elsewhere after reading what you have to say. Your "arguments" invariably descend to a level commensurate with who you are and where you are coming from. But I shall refrain from the ugliness that has become the hall-mark of your posts when under duress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Try to learn what words actually mean, Anthony. My statement is what is called an offer, which I carried out in part without the other side conceding anything. Blackmail, on the other hand, is when a threat is made unless certain actions are undertaken.'

      More spin. You threatened - and yes, it was a threat - to reinstate the falsely-attributed Della pics, if Della didn't remove her critical comments of Manchester. That's blackmail, i.e. 'a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met'. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

      'It repudiated nothing and resorted to outright blackmail. The allegation I (and quite a number of other people) have made about "Della's" true identity IS NOT FALSE. I stand by it one hundred percent.'

      You 'stand by it' with no proof, but malicious intent (blackmail and stalking). By 'quite a number of other people', you mean Manchester, who reproduced your false allegation.

      'I feel it concerns all parties that you clandestinely approached Barbara Green (aka "demonflyonthewall") . . .'

      Considering 'demonflyonthewall' hasn't disclosed their identity, where are you getting the idea that they're Barbara Green?

      '. . . to obtain on the cheap books written by Seán Manchester and other material to probably use against him in the future in some unpleasant way.'

      Translation: research purposes. Also, you don't actually know what I got from her. Barbara didn't mention it, neither did I. Speculation isn't proof, mate.

      'Why wouldn't you order them like everyone else? Before you say you don't want his publisher to have your address, well, Barbara Green's has it now, doesn't she?'

      Maybe she does. But maybe she doesn't... As to 'Before you say', yes, I advise people to be very cautious with handing their personal details over if considering buying items from Manchester. They're not above publicly disseminating private info. So, watch out, folks!

      'If you ever intended to cover the postage cost to Australia for all this material you would have coughed up the £40 months back when it was first offered by you.'

      The offer was made afterward, if I recall. So, apart from your addled 'overview' of the situation, again: how is it relevant to you?

      'What is lunacy, Anthony, is your obsessive posting about Seán Manchester every day of your life for years on end.'

      What is lunacy? That. What you just said. Another example. I don't post about Manchester daily.

      'Other people have reached the same conclusion, including members of your THCVAS group, and if you say otherwise you are in serious denial. I can see no difference between your obsession and cyber-stalking.'

      Speculation, no evidence.

      'My arguments are supported by a fair number of other people who do not want to become involved but all the same comment elsewhere after reading what you have to say.'

      Ah, right: more 'invisible' people. In terms of my forum, our numbers are still steady, so they clearly don't have a problem. We don't force them to post. That's up to them.

      That said, if you've discussed this with a 'fair number of people' (yeah, right), then it's nice to know I preoccupy so much of your time. I'm flattered.

      'Your "arguments" invariably descend to a level commensurate with who you are and where you are coming from. But I shall refrain from the ugliness that has become the hall-mark of your posts when under duress.'

      Yes, where I am coming from: my actual opinions. Why I think certain things about the case. That's called a discussion.

      Delete
  31. "You 'stand by it' with no proof, but malicious intent (blackmail and stalking)."

    You, Anthony, have also claimed to know her identity without any proof whatsoever. When people enter into posting malicious falsehood about someone they must expect counter-claims to be made about them. Had "Della" not entered into making a string of false public accusations about Farrant's nemesis none of this would have happened. She entered the kitchen and got burned. That has nothing to do with blackmail. It is she and Farrant who are stalking Seán Manchester. The latter has been doing so for over four decades.

    "Also, you don't actually know what I got from her. Barbara didn't mention it, neither did I."

    I know what you obtained free of charge from Barbara Green who obviously had a weak moment when she allowed herself to be used as a charity by you, Anthony. I also know that you have not covered her postage, as promised by you, after all these months after receiving the books and items relating to Farrant.

    "They're not above publicly disseminating private info. So, watch out, folks!"

    Kettle, pot, black, Anthony. You've published an address in full on your blog where anti-Seán Manchester propganda dominates. I suppose you had better hope and pray that nobody out there ever discovers your address!

    "I don't post about Manchester daily."

    There are more days of the year on which you post about him than days when you do not. Most days you make multiple posts about him. What does that tell people about you, Anthony? You are a STALKER!

    "That's called a discussion."

    Reach for the dictionary again, Anthony. It's actually called an OBSESSION.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 'You, Anthony, have also claimed to know her identity without any proof whatsoever.'

    Yes, but I haven't devoted a blog to her, nor 'exposed' her by pilfering an innocents' pics from Facebook. You're making the claim for who she 'really' is. The burden of proof is on you. I can't prove a negative.

    'When people enter into posting malicious falsehood about someone they must expect counter-claims to be made about them.'

    That does not absolve you of personal responsibility for your own actions.

    'Had "Della" not entered into making a string of false public accusations about Farrant's nemesis none of this would have happened.'

    You can not attribute your actions to Della. Conversely, had you actually listened to Manchester's advice on ignoring critics, you would've avoided the trouble all together.

    'She entered the kitchen and got burned. That has nothing to do with blackmail. It is she and Farrant who are stalking Seán Manchester. The latter has been doing so for over four decades.'

    She got 'burned' by you. Two wrongs don't make a right. Manchester's endorsement of your blackmail, however, reveals he is a malicious person, too. Thanks for exposing that.

    'I know what you obtained free of charge from Barbara Green who obviously had a weak moment when she allowed herself to be used as a charity by you, Anthony.'

    No, she didn't want the items, so she gave them to me. She doesn't regret doing so, and was more than happy to do it. Your distortion of the arrangement doesn't change that.

    'I also know that you have not covered her postage, as promised by you, after all these months after receiving the books and items relating to Farrant.'

    Again, you don't know what was sent. The postage was offered be me. The matter has been discussed between us. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

    'Kettle, pot, black, Anthony. You've published an address in full on your blog where anti-Seán Manchester propganda dominates.'

    I published Gothic Press' business address, which I got from their eBay site. The VRS, on the other hand, distributed my real name and the FoBSM has attempted to publish my home address. Not the same thing.

    'I suppose you had better hope and pray that nobody out there ever discovers your address!'

    Not for want of trying by the so-called Friends of Bishop Sean Manchester.

    'There are more days of the year on which you post about him than days when you do not.'

    You said I do so every day. You're changing your story as you go along. No surprises there. But if you 'know' I do that, clearly, you're obsessed with myself.

    'Reach for the dictionary again, Anthony. It's actually called an OBSESSION.'

    In your own head, sure. Yet no one is forcing you to post here.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I can't prove a negative."

    Yet you have claimed you can by saying you "know" (of course you do because I told you) who "Della" is, but to reveal the evidence would "compromise" someone. I know who "Della" is also, and I don't have any need to prove it. Knowing is sufficient for me. Time will reveal the truth about her identity.

    "That does not absolve you of personal responsibility for your own actions."

    Or you of your personal responsibility when you endlessly post negatively about Seán Manchester here, there and everywhere from one year to the next.

    "Had you actually listened to Manchester's advice on ignoring critics, you would've avoided the trouble all together."

    My revelations concerning a deception occasioned by Farrant and "Della" are nothing to do with anybody else even if plenty of others also know the facts. The "pitter patter of tiny feet"!! I ask you, Anthony, are you REALLY buying any of that nonsense? How can you possibly be taken in by any of it? You have become the laughing stock of that handful of people in the UK who know you.

    "She got 'burned' by you."

    She "got burned" by entering a Victorian kitchen to try and fry Seán Manchester using modern kitchen utensils that were not up to the job. She was persuaded by Farrant, like others before her, to do Farrant's dirty work and got burned in the process because someone as shielded (spiritually) as Seán Manchester will cause her malice to bounce back on her.

    "[Barbara Green] didn't want the items, so she gave them to me. She doesn't regret doing so, and was more than happy to do it."

    Why would she pick you of all people? Why would she incur approximately £40's worth of postage to send a lot of printed matter to Australia when there are people much closer to home who would have jumped at the chance to receive books of that kind she no longer wanted? YOU ASKED HER FOR THESE BOOKS AND OTHER ITEMS AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON SHE SENT THEM TO YOU!

    "The matter has been discussed between us."

    I know it was discussed some time back, and has been discussed again recently. And still she hasn't been paid anything for the postage. Why?


    "Manchester's endorsement of your blackmail, however, reveals he is a malicious person."

    Seán Manchester has "endorsed" nothing, but obviously, like many others, knows the identity of "Della" and the game she and Farrant are playing. There is no blackmail on my part, and certainly not on his.

    "Not for want of trying by the so-called Friends of Bishop Sean Manchester."

    Prove it.

    "Yet no one is forcing you to post here."

    Nor is anyone "forcing" you to post here. Yet you do and will continue to do so long after I have left because you are totally obsessed with everything about and to do with Seán Manchester.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I know who "Della" is also, and I don't have any need to prove it.'

      Here's the difference: I didn't make authoritative comments about her 'actual' identity. I didn't name her. I didn't write a blog about her, nor did I steal Facebook pictures off someone else and falsely attribute them. Nor did I deny her marriage to Farrant.

      As I said before, with all the claims you're making, the onus is on you to prove them.

      'Or you of your personal responsibility when you endlessly post negatively about Seán Manchester here, there and everywhere from one year to the next.'

      I accept personal responsibility for what I say. But I don't 'endlessly post negatively' about Manchester. That's another one of your delusions. Change the record, already.

      'My revelations concerning a deception occasioned by Farrant and "Della" are nothing to do with anybody else even if plenty of others also know the facts.'

      They're not 'revelations', nor are they 'facts'. They're unsubstantiated claims and counter-claims with a blackmail rider.

      'She "got burned" by entering a Victorian kitchen to try and fry Seán Manchester using modern kitchen utensils that were not up to the job.'

      You're not a Victorian kitchen.

      'She was persuaded by Farrant, like others before her, to do Farrant's dirty work and got burned in the process because someone as shielded (spiritually) as Seán Manchester will cause her malice to bounce back on her.'

      A spiritual agency didn't intervene: you did. Worse, your 'intervention' consisted of false attribution, mudslinging and blackmail. That's not very spiritual.

      'Why would she pick you of all people?'

      She didn't 'pick' me: I asked.

      'YOU ASKED HER FOR THESE BOOKS AND OTHER ITEMS AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON SHE SENT THEM TO YOU!'

      Der.

      'I know it was discussed some time back, and has been discussed again recently. And still she hasn't been paid anything for the postage. Why?'

      Because it's still under discussion. You really seemed obsessed with that issue. It's not like you give a fig about Barbara. So why does it bother you so much? I can only guess you're bothered by me not ordering the items from their publisher. Talk about greedy.

      'Seán Manchester has "endorsed" nothing, but obviously, like many others, knows the identity of "Della" and the game she and Farrant are playing.'

      You said Manchester endorsed your statement threatening to repost the falsely attributed pics of Della if she did not remove her critical comments. So, Manchester gave a direct endorsement of your comments...or he didn't. Which is it.

      'There is no blackmail on my part, and certainly not on his.'

      Threatening to repost images if criticism isn't removed - after an official statement, no less - is blackmail. If Manchester endorsed your comments, as you've alleged, then he endorsed blackmail against another person. It's that simple.

      'Prove it.'

      Already have. As mentioned, the FoBSM posted what they thought was my home address. Which, funnily enough, was also originally amended with a blackmail threat. You guys have a lot in common.

      'Nor is anyone "forcing" you to post here.'

      Yes. I do so of my own freewill. But I'm not the one whining about being 'obsessed'. If you don't like what I say, you're free to leave.

      'Yet you do and will continue to do so long after I have left because you are totally obsessed with everything about and to do with Seán Manchester.'

      You haven't left. And you're not a prophet, so you won't know, for sure, what I'll write here after you've 'gone'. Out of the two of us, you're the most compelled to invoke Manchester's name.

      Again, if you don't like what I say, you're free to leave.

      Delete